Opponents in the gay marriage debate will give oral arguments Thursday morning concerning Utah's gay marriage ban before a panel of three 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges.Kitchen vs. Herbert is the first such case in which a state has defended its gay marriage ban at the Federal appellate level. Legal experts expect that the issue of gay marriage is headed to the U. S. Supreme C...

Argument again: "Think of us intolerant jerks. Give us power so that we may tyrannize others we deem too different from us. Let us arbitrarily judge who may or may not fall in love and build a life together."

Argument for recognizing gay marriage: "Equality is the law of the land."

No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Last edited by Boss302 on April 10th, 2014, 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"He said it also changes the primary role of marriage from being child- centric to adult-centric."

Hasn't society already changed this? I mean, how many children are born out of wedlock now and how many people do you see married that have no intention of having kids? I don't care what you call it, marriage, civil union whatever. Just give all people the same rights in terms of governmental benefits, work benefits that married people now get.

If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

Social Security should have been called "FDR Security" in honor of President Roosevelt who proposed and championed the program.

When they say ObamaCare, remember it was a Democratic POTUS that helped those who needed health care.

DoubleB wrote:If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

There. Wish fulfillment is my goal, Boss302 and 3F.

I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously repubs care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by repubs) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the better.

That said, meaning that ALL Libs feels the exact opposite of what you "think" repubs are then?

Who made you the finger to point out who is who is and who believes what?

I am a White, Old (if 58 is old) and by no means rich "repub", who supports gay and pro choice rights. I could care less about what your race or belief system is. I also own guns, support the 2nd, want the illegal immigration system fixed before the hand outs begin. I do not belong to the NRA, NAACP, ACU, Tea Party or the K K K. I have supported many liberal causes and fought against many as well.

So what compartment do you want to stuff me in?

Your own prejudice comes shining through when you make dum comments like this one.

Viking Speaks wrote:I am a White, Old (if 58 is old) and by no means rich "repub", who supports gay and pro choice rights. I could care less about what your race or belief system is. I also own guns, support the 2nd, want the illegal immigration system fixed before the hand outs begin. I do not belong to the NRA, NAACP, ACU, Tea Party or the K K K. I have supported many liberal causes and fought against many as well.

So what compartment do you want to stuff me in?

You aren't the problem...but you're also a comparative rarity. And that's unfortunate for the Republicans. I'd say they need to ditch the social conservatives, but if they do that, they lose a HUGE amount of support and funding.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Right, but if tax law says that Couple A can take a tax deduction, then denying the same deduction to Couple B because of what they like to do between the sheets is an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea of dialog is to read what the first poster said. All of it. I'll point it out to you: ...PROVIDE ANOTHER TERM...

And these sorts of social changes should be accomplished through legislative and electoral processes, not through judicial activists ramming THEIR view of changed mores down the throats of those who do see the world in different terms.

And those "different terms" have nothing to do with hating people but with seeing consequences for behavior. We think a guy who cheats on his wife is a moral failure, not a person in the discriminated class of Adulterers.

Question, when do we get to vote on your rights? The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

Viking Speaks wrote:I am a White, Old (if 58 is old) and by no means rich "repub", who supports gay and pro choice rights. I could care less about what your race or belief system is. I also own guns, support the 2nd, want the illegal immigration system fixed before the hand outs begin. I do not belong to the NRA, NAACP, ACU, Tea Party or the K K K. I have supported many liberal causes and fought against many as well.

So what compartment do you want to stuff me in?

You aren't the problem...but you're also a comparative rarity. And that's unfortunate for the Republicans. I'd say they need to ditch the social conservatives, but if they do that, they lose a HUGE amount of support and funding.

Ahh but there is the hitch.

If 'we" ditch the social conservatism, "you" need to ditch the social liberal one. The Tax and Spend mentality and blame the 1%, on a lot of these issues is tearing this country apart, just as much as the Bedroom and Pulpit and blame the illegal immigrants and lazy mentality of my party is.

A happy medium needs to be found and the Middle (like me) who do not support a party line, but issue one needs to heard from again.

Sal M O\'nella wrote:Question, when do we get to vote on your rights? The court are doing what the courts were designed to do.

When were the courts designed to implement social change, or to decide that the Constitution itself was wrong? We have become a nation of "We the Judges," not "We the People."

The courts are applying the constitution to the laws. It is not social change. Gay people have been around and have gotten married, this is about the legal recognition. Take a high school civics course, this is basic stuff.

granddad 1 wrote:No where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have the right to define marriage. This is a responsibility of the States under the 10th Amendment. It poses a problem ONLY because of Federal Laws, improperly written, that use marriage as a possibility for disparity in tax and other laws. Remove the word marriage from the Federal Laws and provide another term. No church is required to perform a "marriage" between same sex couples; they go to a civil authority for the blessing of their union. Perform the ceremony in the European manner the couple first go to the civil authority for authorization and then to a church, if they wish, for the blessing of the church.

Regardless on if it is the states job to define marriage, the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protects still applies to the states. And since every states treats married people differently than non-married people they must allow same sex marriage.

"The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."- from WikipediaSince when were same sex couples slaves?

"A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens." - From the same wikipedia page. Guess you should have kept reading.

The equal protection clause was a result of the end of slavery, but does not limit its power to only former slaves.

If I say it out loud it is oral. I absolutely don't care if someone is gay. That said, obviously I care - they cannot stand gays, women, minorities, non-Christians (as defined by ME) and anyone other than repub white men, the older and richer the bett